As promised, a mock-up of my Input/Output suggestion. Please excuse the amateur graphics work.



Track 2 is unchanged. Track 1 has my suggestions. Note that this instantly solves the I/O name issue. Plenty of room for long names. Also, the green in the Sends is just a quick idea to distinguish them from regular I/O. Another way to do this is to just duplicate the Output widget. After all, a send is just another output...  I adjusted the size of the Sends widgets for clarity but since then I have changed other things in the design so that might not be necessary.

I also added a little minimise widget and increased the size of the FX bin.

One thing I would most certainly change is the naming of the Sends Level and Pan faders.  I don't see why they are called the way they are. Level and Pan would be much clearer (and actually readable) and it would be enough as the bus name is right above. It would also be less cluttered and neater which follows X1's design goals.

UnderTow

.

Any chance that copy/paste can be made better? Just a couple of little things would improve the situation a ton.

As I see this is generating a ton of interest, I will also give the same example without any Sends:



Seriously, doesn't that look uncluttered and neat?

UnderTow

Seriously, doesn't that look uncluttered and neat?

Yeah that does. Real nice work CW why haven't you hired him yet?

Looks nice, but there's some wasted space next to the Gain widget.

And how would you customize it so the user could hide any of those widgets?

Just sayin'.  


These kind of discussions are why I never volunteer to do GUI design. 

I really like the combined Input/Gain and Output/Vol/Pan widgets. However...

What happens when you drag the pane boundary between the track header and clips pane a little to the right?
Because the widgets are wider, they don't wrap as easily, and you get wasted space compared to the current X1 arrangement.

This is what makes GUI design so hard. Everybody uses software differently. In the design stage it's hard to cover all uses.

Cheers, Peter.

I really think Mike's use of the word foolish only came because of the frustration caused for needlessly having to repeat himself because of John's posts.

Right I am the one that is causing all the posting. When on this thread I have 20 posts including this one you Undertow have 22 and mike has 22.

Simply because you don't like me posting does not give you the right to say anything regarding my postings or how often I post. I don'y try to stifle you. I don't think you should try to stifle me.

Instead try to see my point. Then post your objection to it with logic and reason. Not a gratuitous smearing and mis-characterization of them.

I still prefer this clean, efficient, well-differentiated and control/info-rich layout (~140% of actual size):
 
MIDI/Audio Track Pair wih primary controls and 2-slot FX bins
 

 
 
With Sends, MIDI Patch/Pitch/Time Offset, and 4-slot FX Bins
 
 
  
 

dwcaldwell


Looks nice, but there's some wasted space next to the Gain widget.

I was thinking it could contain the missing widgets. Polarity and Interleave. It might not be the most logical place for them tough... Another option could be a small Input Level Meter! (Then you can see the difference between input and output after the signal has been processed by inserted FX. Could be useful, especially if using hardware inserts).

And how would you customize it so the user could hide any of those widgets?

One obvious answer is to not discard the exiting Volume, Gain and Pan widgets. Call them Compact Volume, Compact Gain, Compact Pan. If anyone wants to use them, go ahead. Then there should be a Compact I/O (just the Input/Output selection above each other). They could even keep the current ones if people prefer those can call them Compact Input and Compact Output. All bases covered.

With the Track Control Manager it should be easy for anyone to add or remove what they want/like.

Just sayin'. 

You are absolutely right, all these kind of things need to be addressed in GUI design.

UnderTow